LOUISIANA — This decision arises out of the
court’s review of the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, and appellant’s motion for
review of an order granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. The
shipyard worker plaintiff originally filed an action in state court naming
numerous defendants. The initial petition included failure to warn and
negligence claims against the appellant, among other causes of action, and
strict products liability and failure to warn claims against a boiler
defendant, who also opposed the motion to remand. Approximately three months
after the first pleading, the plaintiffs filed an amended petition adding a
defendant, and asserting strict liability claims as to the appellant and the
new defendant.

Following a witness deposition that connected
the plaintiff’s injuries to work on U.S. Navy ships, the appellant filed its
notice of removal alleging federal officer jurisdiction. The plaintiffs
subsequently requested leave to file an amended complaint to delete their
strict liability claims against the appellant, alleging that these claims were
brought in a good faith error. Leave to amend was granted, and the instant
defendant appealed. The plaintiffs opposed the appeal, and moved to remand.

Appellants argued that the amended pleading deleting
strict liability claims was in bad faith because it was intended to defeat
federal jurisdiction, while also arguing that the amendment was futile because
it cannot destroy federal jurisdiction. The court concluded that there was no
error in granting the leave to amend. Courts are permitted to freely give leave
to amend when justice requires. The court further noted that the “amended
complaint does not automatically destroy federal jurisdiction,” which “weighs
in favor, rather than against, permitting amendment.”

Next considering the plaintiffs’ motion to
remand, the court began its analysis by noting that its jurisdiction was based
on the notice of removal, not the amended complaint. While an amended complaint
deleting federal claims “may permit a discretionary remand, it does not destroy
federal jurisdiction over a validly removed case.” The court noted that
appellants had a strong body of law supporting their right to remove the matter
based on the plaintiffs’ strict liability claims. Appellants properly supported
their notice of removal and presented a colorable defense of federal contractor
immunity. A “good faith error may justify granting leave to amend. But
plaintiffs’ error does not create a jurisdictional defect in the notice of
removal.” In response to the plaintiffs’ argument that the amended complaint
removed the federal question, necessitating remand, the court further bolstered
its decision to deny the motion to remand given the boiler defendant’s
opposition, and their assertion of a federal contractor defense in pleadings,
which the court analyzed and found as sufficiently colorable to defeat remand.

The views expressed in this document are solely the views of the author and not Martindale-Hubbell. This document is intended for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance.

Contact Goldberg Segalla LLP - Philadelphia Office

Choose Area of Practice Invalid Area of Practice is requiredFirst Name Invalid First Name is requiredLast Name Invalid Last Name is requiredE-mail Address Invalid E-mail Address is required

Describe Your Legal Matter

{{ (description ? description.length : 0) + '/1000 characters' }}

Invalid Legal Matter is required

Country Invalid Country is requiredZipInvalidZipis requiredCity/Town/LocalityInvalid City/Town/Locality is requiredState/Province/DistrictInvalid State/Province/District is requiredPhone Number Invalid Phone Number is required Preferred Contact Method

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.

CONSUMER WEBSITES

The information provided on this site is not legal advice, does not constitute a lawyer referral service, and no attorney-client or confidential relationship is or should be formed by the use of this site. The attorney listings on the site are paid attorney advertisements. Your access of/to and use of this site is subject to additional Supplemental Terms.